"Our attacks will continue as long as you support Israel."

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tubbs1970, Mar 16, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Message released by Bin Laden in January this year said:

    "Our attacks will continue as long as you support Israel."

    It went on: "America will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality in Palestine."

    Does anyone else think it is time to enforce UN Resolution 242 (the return of Israel to pre-1967 borders)?
     
  2. No, I think a larger more expansive Israel is what the region needs. Perhaps, given Turkey's soon to be entrance, Israel should be preparing themselves for entry to the EEC block?
     
  3. Very selective quoting, Al Qaeda is about much more than just Israel-Palestine.

    He's been playing to that though recently because his other justifications don't have quite as much support in the region.
     
  4. No. Because unless AQ has changed its tune since 2002 :

    "An al Qaeda manifesto titled "Why We Fight America," which was made public in June 2002, expresses radical Islam's agenda with abundant clarity: "What happened to America [on 9/11] is something natural, an expected event for a country that uses terror, arrogant policy, and suppression against the nations and the peoples . . . America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by . . . laws that contradict the way of Allah. . . . [Therefore], we have the right to kill 4 million Americans - 2 million of them children - and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons . . ."

    ...It wouldn't make any difference. The thing that really got on Osama's nipples was the appearance of US troops in Saudi in 1991. He wanted all his Afghan Mujahaddin mates to defend Saudi against Saddam, rather than invite in the infidel. Sadly for him, the Saudis took one look at Saddams' war machine, considered the fanatic rabble Osama was offering to guard their borders, and phoned Washington.

    "To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able, in any country," the manifesto reads, "until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam."
    (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9951/)

    Just the concept of the USA, with its separation of religion and State, democracy, promising liberty and opportunity to all, WHATEVER their colour, creed, or sex, is an absolute opposite to what AQ stands for- Which is total submission to the will of Allah as interpreted through the bigotry of one Osama B_L.
    Read this bit again:
    "America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by . . . laws that contradict the way of Allah."

    Which is a pity really, as he is no Islamic expert. He was trained as a public administrator and civil engineer. So following his advice is a bit like going on Crusade on the moral authority of your local council town planner.

    Palestine is a side issue. AQ has never had much of a foothold in the Occupied territories, as the PLO/HAMAS/ and Hezbollah have it pretty well stitched up. Hezbollah, especially, are Shia, and AQ are fundamentalist Sunni. AQ is almost entirely focussed on Saudi. Their presence in Afghanistan is simply because they were so unpopular, only the Taliban would host them. Even the Sudanese, genocidal as they were, chucked him out. All that's happened since is that a number of other militant groups, such as the headbangers from the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) in Algeria have all 'affiliated' to AQ for the added machismo of being part of the 9/11 global jihad, rather than just being nasty local terrorists.

    AQ will fight the USA because, in its view, the USA is an abomination. It may dislike the Jews, but hates everything that the USA represents, and no adjustment of the 1967 map will change that.
     
  5. Thanks for your input and i agree with both your points, but...

    If we do want peace it is necessary to negotiate, and Bin Ladens request to enforce International law as perscribed by United Nations is hard to dismiss as unreasonable.

    Remember that the UK fought the IRA for 40+ (?) years before finally realizing you can't defeat such an ingrained political ideology - negotiation is the only real solution.

    Brandy - great idea to keep our soldiers busy fighting someone elses cause! Will be great for Tea Room sales in Wootton Bassett too...
     
  6. tubbs1970 when you said "If we do want peace it is necessary to negotiate, and Bin Ladens request to enforce International law as perscribed by United Nations is hard to dismiss as unreasonable." this implies that both sides are prepared to negotiate to reach a compromise.

    Unfortunately AQ and their like seem to be very reluctant to negotiate in any way, they want us to compromise but they will not. They believe that they have some form of 'holy writ' from God to wage holy war on any state or peoples that they see as infidels and on that they will not compromise.

    I will ask is 'what is the answer?' and quite honestly at this time I do not know.
     
  7. Hector - very informative post, thanks.

    So, do we have an on going conflict until every Muslim with this ideology is dead or imprisoned in Guantanamo?

    Or, do we compromise by enforcing UN Resolution 242, which was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22 1967, and seeing where that gets us?
     
  8. Thanks Home(should be)worker... hasn't Bin Laden opened negotiating by effectively saying "We will stop attacking USA (& her Allies) when you enforce International Law in Middle East"

    The ball's in our court, so to speak
     
  9. AQ decided that, instead of asking for what it wanted, it would start killing anyone it disliked. What's to say negotiation with the is worth the effort?
     
  10. I think that is a slight distortion of the truth, but anyway.... what is the alternative to negotiation?
     
  11. Since the 73 Yom Kipper war blew that to ratshite.......

    Lets be blunt here. The 1948 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Israel, the proto Government of Israel but rejected by the the Arab Higher Committee that represented the Arabs in Palestine.

    If the Arabs had accepted the 48 plan then the Middle East could have been a lot more peaceful over the last 60 plus years. Instead, the Arabs, egged on by the Arab League threw their teddy out the pram.

    And. The Palestine's have never seriously been supported by any Arab state, they have been keep in a limbo state for 60 odd years because 1)The Arabs largely loathe them and b)they make a useful stick to beat the USA and the West with.
    Otherwise explain why Gazza is blocked on the only Arab land border, not just the Israeli side......
     
  12. Kit, i agree - it is a shitty and complicated situation, but....

    Whilst we continue to ignore International Law & UN Resolutions on this issue, our enemies have a fair point.

    I say comply with above and then if they still want to pick a fight, unleash hell on them.

    Until then we are an unjust, hypocritical bully.
     
  13. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    Nope!

    Give the Israelis more land and more money.
     
  14. Personally, I think that the Israel- Arab thing could be worked out locally if the USA and Iran both stood down, and let the locals sort it out.
    The current Israeli government is heavily influenced by Right wing religious nutters, but Israel is still heavily dependant on the USA. There is, however, no treaty obligation. If the US made future support conditional on 1) a defence treaty obliging the US to support Israel only in time of war, and 2) Israeli withdrawal to agreed borders, etc,(to be negotiated with the Palestinians), then the religious right would not be able to do much about it.
    The Iranians would need to stand down their proxy army in Lebanon, but what business have they got there anyway? The Sinai has already been handed back, the Jordanians have already got a peace treaty going, so the only real issue is with Syria on the Golan, and Lebanon. The Israelis only got involved in the Lebanon in the 80's cos of persistant PLO raiding, which is now in the hands of Hezbollah. All they achieved was to exchange Palestinian nationalists for Shia militants, but I think everyone would like to see the back of them, as they don't like the hand of Tehran this far West.

    As to the ideology, I think that this is really part of an ongoing civil war within Islam itself. The Muslim world took a major thrashing throughout the 20th century, being stamped on by everyone, and showing an incredible ability to back losing causes. The reaction was to dig ever deeper into religious orthodoxy (Pray for help!) OR decide that Allah wasn't at the root of the problem, but bad government was.

    It can be seen that many of the most successful Muslim (Not just Arab) countries are relatively moderate in religion, and although they may be dictatorships or one party states, do have respect for rule by civil law. Most of the worst, are desperately religious, wartorn anarchies.

    This will probably take at least another 50 years to work its way through. Somehow or other the Islamic world will have to come up with a model to alow it to keep the working bits of its religion, but also adjust to some form of civil government without the Mullahs. This deliberate divorce of Church and State is what horrifies AQ.

    In the meantime, yes, we will have to keep on culling the nutters while the process works itself out in the background.

    I am hopeful though. When Europe did the same thing, we had the Reformation. We then had the Thirty Years War, and decades of violence all across Europe. By the time it all fizzled out, Europe entered the 1700's and a new age of science and reason we now call the Enlightenment. I hope that by the late 2190's there might be some progress!
     
  15. Well, it's unlikely to work but we could give it a try?

    But, as the Palestinian situation has nothing to do with the purity of the Dar-al-Islam (especially infidels infesting the Arabian Peninsular), surely all we are doing is attacking Israel (bad move - and how else do you think we might enforce the resolution - it is also interesting to see an attack on a sovereign democratic state described as 'compromise') in order to appease the many Israel-haters around. Some of whom, yes, are Muslim, but not all of them, and the Muslims are not necessary supporter of AQ (and, even if they are, don't have any significant influence over it.)

    Personally, I would think that the radical whackos would spin it as the weak-willed West succumbing to the glorious jihad regardless of the actual logic behind the action (and their own lack of support for the Palestinian cause.)

    Some of them, of course, are just (ab)using their oil riches to stave off their decay in to anarchy ...